Isiah Thomas vs Steve Nash - the better player

[G35]

re: Joe Johnson. for adults you're amazingly naive. Joe Johnson wouldn't say a word if he got a comparable contract and best player on a team status.

re: Marion. whatever Marion wanted didn't really matter because the trade didn't happen because of Marion's wishes, it happened because Lakers brought Gasol couple days before and Suns idiotic management figured "hey, Shaq's big - he'll help out" failing to understand what mechanism really works here. when you're giving up your best defender for extremely slow big unable to guard perimeter... it doesn't "help out".

Nash going to Phoenix was a financial decision, JJ was mostly a financial decision, Marion was poor decision making by front office. I'm amazed by the naive analysis multiple people have produced in this thread. probably 90% of NBA's trades are financial decisions, so stop making up crazy stories about what certain guys wanted. for example Kobe Bryant wanted Gasol, but he wouldn't get him if not for financial decision by Memphis. involving players in this stuff is crazy.

what Suns management should've done is:
-let JJ go, he's easily replaceable next to Nash as was the case with vastly less talented R.Bell
-bring as many veterans as possible to improve their bench
-draft young talent to keep the team young and competitive
-add rebounders
-add defense

if you're not completely ignorant and have a remotest incline of what happened during Nash's tenure in Phoenix, unlike Warspite or G35, who are clearly clueless in this case, if you actually analyse management moves during these years, you realise there was no reasonable or consistent policy and it was completely against the basic rules of basketball.
s
in 2005 NBA draft, with NBA MVP on the team, Jimmy Jackson and Joe Johnson as other guards, the team selects Nate Robinson instead of going after David Lee, Jason Maxiell or even Ronny Turiaf.

in 2006 NBA draft, they used their 2 first round picks to select point guards

in 2007 NBA draft, they selected Alando Tucker (bust) and Rudy Fernandez (traded for nothing)

in 2008 NBA draft, they chose Robin Lopez... at the time reasonably good decision but there were still better regarded players on board like Hibbert, McGee or Speights, not to mention guys like Ibaka, Batum or Mbah a Moute.

in 2009 NBA draft, they selected Earl Clark (bust). at the time Ty Lawson was the best player on board. I remember wondering wtf.

Suns didn't draft a single NBA starter between 2005 and 2009 and you blame Nash for Suns management being incompetent ? obviously if you're this bad at drafting, you can't be making much better choices in terms of trades etc. it's just blatant. imagine how much David Lee would help with his rebounding in 2006 and 2007.

If you are going to act like you are an authority on ANYTHING other than your opinion then your posts aren't worthy of notice.....

[G35]

Re: "I personally prefer Erving, but others prefer Bird because of rings." And this doesn't send a signal to you that perhaps following the sheep mindset of others leads you off a cliff?

Re: "if I lose a game I sucked. I don't care what the stats say." Well then, if you aren't able to objectively analyze both the details of your performance to see what you did well and what you did poorly in anything in life, then you had best get used to sucking, because you'll be competing with others who don't share your handicap.

I agree that there is a sheep mindset particularly about the top 10-15 players all time.

I don't think Jordan is the GOAT. I think Kareem is better.

I think Bird/Magic both benefited immensely from having stacked squads.

I think KG is a stat stuffer and not nearly as good as Duncan.

I think CP3 is better than Nash ever was.

I would take Stockton/Isiah over Nash.

I think Barkley's lack of defense is overstated.

I think one series defines DRob's career far too much than it should.

And finally why does me disagreeing with the majority about Nash make me a sheep? Doesn't that make not a follower and you a sheep?......

[rrravenred]

Then Nash needs to focus on defending the opposing point instead of leaving his man open to help. I guess you gonna blame lack of rotation.

Why should he do that, if he's going to have a bigger team impact by rotating?

You seem to believe that the only form of defense worth playing is one-on-one (which ties in with some of your previous dismissive remarks about modern basketball). I profoundly disagree. I believe that the relatively ineffective defensive rotation by Phoenix's bigs WAS a big factor in the relatively poor brand of D (as well as the... uh... unorthodox decisions to play Marion at PF and Amare at C).

The other question I suppose is whether Isiah's defense has anything to do with the fact that he had one of the nastier, more physical frontcourts to erase any penetration given up as well as Denis Rodman (DPOY, during a championship year) and Joe Dumars (top 5 DPOY vote-getter) as wing defenders. Isiah was probably the weakest defender in his starting 5.

(Unless, of course, you're convinced that the team owes their it's excellence to Isiah and that the likes of Laimbeer and Dumars would have been no-D turnstiles without Isiah. If you don't, I'm sure another Isiah supporter here does)

Nash on the suns? Well probably the worst defender, although I'd say Amare was worse, especially given the pivotal position he plays. Here's an interesting exercise. How many members of the starting Championship Pistons teams were worse defensively than the Sun's BEST starting defender?

[rrravenred]

Yeah and what happened next year?....and the year after. What has Nash ever w[/list]on....well being the only MVP to never reach the finals. That must show he helps his team a lot......

Or that his teams were poorly constructed. Which they were.

Individual player contribution != Team Result.

[Brenice]

I wonder why a point guard is scoring repeatedly against phoenix as if he is not being defended and people blame all the suns except nash. Why is that?

I never said zeke was the best piston defender. I said he was better than nash. I also said he was the heart of the pistons. Then people will say that discredits the other pistons. That's crazy. Other players have been called the heart of the team. Hell, I heard them say it about rondo.

But then there is this all around great point guard nash. Nash fans will discredit God if you compare him to nash.

[Doctor MJ]

Then Nash needs to focus on defending the opposing point instead of leaving his man open to help. I guess you gonna blame lack of rotation.

You're not understanding. He's not saying that the team sucking disproportionately on defense is someone else's fault besides Nash, he's saying that they don't suck disproportionately when Nash is on the court (while also explaining why).

One of the things that skews perspective here is that there's no defensive point guard who can really stop top point guards in this day and age. They all get burned if they don't have a well constructed defense behind them. When a guy with a good defensive rep has them happen to him, people rightfully point this out, but when it happens to Nash people prefer to say "See, he sucks on defense." The reality is that all the objective indicators say that Nash is roughly a net neutral on defense.

[Rapcity_11]

Yeah and what happened next year?....and the year after.

In 1988, Isiah was a loser, right?

What has Nash ever won....well being the only MVP to never reach the finals. That must show he helps his team a lot......

That shows that Nash's team has never won, tells us little about him.

[rrravenred]

I wonder why a point guard is scoring repeatedly against phoenix as if he is not being defended and people blame all the suns except nash. Why is that?

I think we've covered this several times (and I assume you're primarily referring to Parker?) in this thread. Another interesting question is how many point guards on Parker's offensive level Isiah faced during his Playoff career and how he went against them.

You've got:

1984 - Rory Sparrow
1985 - MRR, Dennis Johnson
1986 - Doc Rivers
1987 - Michael Adams/Dennis Whately, Doc Rivers, Dennis Johnson
1988 - Darrell Walker, John Paxson / Rory Sparrow, Magic
1989 - Dennis Johnson (?, only played 19 minutes PG, no Ainge), Jay Humphries, Craig Hodges, Magic (three games only)
1990: Vern Fleming, Maurice Cheeks, Paxson / BJ Armstrong, Terry Porter
1991: Doc Rivers, Dee Brown, Paxson / Armstrong

Apart from Magic. Porter and (arguably) MRR, no one there really stands out as being on the same level as Parker. And FWIW, apart from Parker, you've maybe got one series where Sam Cassell did very well on Nash, but...

Can you provide some more examples of playoff series that you believe were turned by Nash being "lit up"?

I never said zeke was the best piston defender. I said he was better than nash. I also said he was the heart of the pistons. Then people will say that discredits the other pistons. That's crazy. Other players have been called the heart of the team. Hell, I heard them say it about rondo.

Yes, but does that mean you'd take Rondo over Pierce? Or Garnett? Maybe Allen...

Your point stands, of course. The reason I mentioned it is that defense is much more of a team exercise than offense, and the quality of your teammates does play into your own performance considerably.

But then there is this all around great point guard nash. Nash fans will discredit God if you compare him to nash.

Any other hyperbole you'd like to break out whilst you're here?

[Doctor MJ]

But then there is this all around great point guard nash. Nash fans will discredit God if you compare him to nash.

I understand why you feel that way, and rest assured, that's typically how I feel when argue with Isiah or Stockton guys.

Of course it doesn't happen when I argue Nash over Magic because I don't argue Nash over players I readily admit are better than him. I've mentioned a variety of guys I'd take over Nash in the thread, but for some reason the fact that I can do this so easily and without any hesitation doesn't seem to stick in the memories of the people I argue with over players that I consider inferior to Nash. :shrug:

[easiestplayfts]

I think the only people that voted for Nash is the people that did not watch the NBA when Thomas was in his prime.

I am so shocked by the voting results.....I was going to post the very same thing, today.

[Doctor MJ]

I think the only people that voted for Nash is the people that did not watch the NBA when Thomas was in his prime.

I am so shocked by the voting results.....I was going to post the very same thing, today.

Meh, I don't understand the gasps of surprise. I understand vehement disagreement, but as I've stated, the case for Isiah here is based on overriding the data and the accolades. You need to expect to have an uphill battle on your hands.

[easiestplayfts]

I think the only people that voted for Nash is the people that did not watch the NBA when Thomas was in his prime.

I am so shocked by the voting results.....I was going to post the very same thing, today.

Meh, I don't understand the gasps of surprise. I understand vehement disagreement, but as I've stated, the case for Isiah here is based on overriding the data and the accolades. You need to expect to have an uphill battle on your hands.

Isiah Thomas retired in 1994 that was 17 years ago...... how many 20 and early 30 year olds actually saw the Bad Boy Pistons games? Other than NBATV classics and youtube.

That being said if Isiah was playing today or Nash playing in the late 80's people would have a real-time concept of the 2 players. It is literally two completely different styles of BB. The 80's being the toughest. I think Isiah would be elite now but I don't think Nash would have elite against with the defense of the 80's. Defense is tough enough for Nash right now!!!

One more thing the fact the Isiah is this close in votes 17 years after his careeer speaks volumes about his legacy....almost to the point of mythical status.
I doubt a Nash vs ______ in 17 years reaches 560+ posts (with most being ++++) on any BB forum. Isiah is a basketball icon that rises above mere stats and irrelevant individual accolades.

[ElGee]

Do the people voting for Isiah understand that the best player on the court doesn't always win? That there is a wide range of teams from -10 MOV teams to +10 MOV teams and that factor is PRIMARILY dependent on how many rings an individual finishes with?

It's a spectacularly simple concept that I believe they are trying not to grasp in order to protect their stance of Isiah > Nash because they have nothing else to argue.

[easiestplayfts]

Do the people voting for Isiah understand that the best player on the court doesn't always win?

I voted for Isiah......I don't quite understand what you mean.

[ElGee]

Do the people voting for Isiah understand that the best player on the court doesn't always win?

I voted for Isiah......I don't quite understand what you mean.

Most people on the Isiah have reduced their argument to winning and losing.

The best player on the court doesn't always win. Any member of the 2004 Detroit Pistons didn't compare to 1990 Michael Jordan. In fact, any member of the 1990 Detroit Pistons didn't compare to Michael Jordan. Those teams won because teams wins, not individuals.

It's incredibly simple. Quite often in the game of the basketball the best player on the court isn't on the winning team.

[Doctor MJ]

Isiah Thomas retired in 1994 that was 17 years ago...... how many 20 and early 30 year olds actually saw the Bad Boy Pistons games? Other than NBATV classics and youtube.

That being said if Isiah was playing today or Nash playing in the late 80's people would have a real-time concept of the 2 players. It is literally two completely different styles of BB. The 80's being the toughest. I think Isiah would be elite now but I don't think Nash would have elite against with the defense of the 80's. Defense is tough enough for Nash right now!!!

One more thing the fact the Isiah is this close in votes 17 years after his careeer speaks volumes about his legacy....almost to the point of mythical status.
I doubt a Nash vs ______ in 17 years reaches 560+ posts (with most being ++++) on any BB forum. Isiah is a basketball icon that rises above mere stats and irrelevant individual accolades.

This notion that defense back then was so tough is not backed up by the objective evidence. Defense in the early 00s was FAR more effective. If you want to say that defense was a bit tougher in Isiah's time than in the mid-to-late 00s that's fine, but Nash first played in the teeth of a "defense is killing this game" era and did quite well.

Re: "This thread means Isiah's greater than Nash." Um, Isiah basically doesn't show up on the PC board normally. Meanwhile controversial Nash threads with Stockton, Kidd, whoever are around all the time. This thread thus only exists because Nash is a lightning rod for controversy on a level that very few other players are...and that probably won't ever change because there are lots of people who think him getting MVPs is a horrible injustic and a good amount of us who will remain ready to pwn those people for the forseeable future.

[Doctor MJ]

Do the people voting for Isiah understand that the best player on the court doesn't always win?

I voted for Isiah......I don't quite understand what you mean.

I can help:

In a team game, sometimes the best player doesn't win...which is the only reason why Isiah ever won a title.

Your welcome internet.

[easiestplayfts]

Do the people voting for Isiah understand that the best player on the court doesn't always win?

I voted for Isiah......I don't quite understand what you mean.

Most people on the Isiah have reduced their argument to winning and losing.

The best player on the court doesn't always win. Any member of the 2004 Detroit Pistons didn't compare to 1990 Michael Jordan. In fact, any member of the 1990 Detroit Pistons didn't compare to Michael Jordan. Those teams won because teams wins, not individuals.

It's incredibly simple. Quite often in the game of the basketball the best player on the court isn't on the winning team.

What.....2 things:
1. Micheal Jordon was a SG.....And Isiah and Nash were PGs. I don't see how MJ is irrelevant to this thread? There's a huge difference between the role of a SG and a PG.

2. PG's role is to make his teammates better...which Isiah did. He had the PG position thru 3 finals and 2 championships. Nash suprisingly had 3 top regular season NBA teams that couldn't even get to the finals.

BTW, Jordan and Isiah were in the same conference...how do you think Nash would have done against Jordans Bulls?

[rrravenred]

Isiah is a basketball icon that rises above mere stats and irrelevant individual accolades.

This is the attitude that really sticks in my craw. It's an unsupportable and unanswerable statement, and to use it as a foundation for an argument (which some posters are), is like a politician in the middle of heated debate throwing up their hands and saying "God moves in mysterious ways" as if that ends the argument. If it were being added as a bit of color or an obvious and acknowledged bit of homerism then I'd really be fine with it, but some people (not necessarily you) seem to consider it a central pillar, without acknowledging that it's the fan talking, not the analyst.

[rrravenred]

BTW, Jordan and Isiah were in the same conference...how do you think Nash would have done against Jordans Bulls?

Which ones? 87? 89? 90? Those Bulls teams changed reasonably rapidly over that timeframe. Jordan was one of the few constants.

And what question are you asking? How would Nash individually produce against that opposition, or how would the Suns team (also... which one?) have performed against the selected Bulls team?